Choice of game forcing bids

[Phil]

BTW, can we splinter if opener rebids 2NT? What would

1♠-2♥

2NT-4♦

mean? Not playing strong jump shifts, it sounds like an auto-splinter to me but maybe I am nuts.

 

Spade splinter.

[mgoetze]

I have a bidding system that can show specifically a 2641 shape on the second round of bidding. Does that make my system awful too? :o

Yes, wasted bid obv. ;)

[mikeh]

I'm interested (and a little surprised) that so many people are bidding 2H on this hand. Although I admit that 2H will often work out fine, it makes showing 4 card Spade support later in the auction almost impossible, which might cause partner to misjudge the slam potential of a hand that has weak trumps.

 

For example playing 2/1, the auction will often develop:

 

1S - 2H

2S - 4D

 

Which I prefer to play suggests a hand with 3514 or 3613 shape but never 4612.

 

For me this hand is also too strong for an immediate 4D splinter (which would show a minimum GF), so I would start with an artificial 2NT G/F raise, planning to subsequently show diamonds shortage.

I see this sort of reasoning in a lot of threads where those holding this idea want to make an immediate raise of partner's opening bid, but I think that the argument is essentially circular, and (more importantly) contains some implicit and utterly needless 'rules' about bidding.

 

The sequence of 2♥ followed by a spade raise, whether a splinter or simply bidding 3♠ (after all, opener might not rebid 2♠) shouldn't be seen as limiting responder's spade length.....why on earth should we define these auctions as showing precisely 3 card support? What is the justification?

 

The problem is that all too many players learn bidding by rules rather than by understanding what bidding is intended to accomplish. We learn that with certain holdings we are supposed to bid this or that, and so on. However, in real life there is a virtually limitless number of variations we can hold, and far too many to be neatly encapsulated in rigid rules.

 

Bidding is a conversation or dialogue, not an exchange of rigidly codified statements, altho there is ample scope for rigidly codified bidding in some situations.

 

1♠2♥2♠4♦ isn't about showing 3=5=1=4 or 4=5=1=3 etc.

 

It is: responder saying:

 

1. I hold 5 plus hearts and at least game going values

2. Opener saying, according to systemic preference: I hold 5+ spades, I don't have good heart support, and this is a convenient call for me, or I hold 6+ spades

3. Responder then says: In addition to my heart suit, I hold real spade support, slam interest and a stiff diamond.

 

Isn't that last statement a perfect expression of how responder sees his hand? Now opener, aware of this, looks at his hand and can drive to slam, explore grand, sign off, or make some cuebid, expressing in doing so how he sees his hand meshing with the description afforded by partner. On the OP hand, he bids 4♠ and East passes, especially if playing 4♥ as Last Train, which admittedly is hardly an intermediate concept and may not be even Advanced. The important point is to trust partner. Having had the dialogue as I have described it, it would be insulting to opener to move over 4♠. Being off 3 tricks is far more likely than having a slam and partner rejecting even a try.

 

 

Look at the auction in this fashion, and you will see no reason to constrain your notions of how many spades responder has and, as a side-benefit, adopting this view of what bidding is all about will immensely improve your ability to bid co-operatively with a good partner.

[Fluffy]

BTW, can we splinter if opener rebids 2NT? What would

1♠-2♥

2NT-4♦

mean? Not playing strong jump shifts, it sounds like an auto-splinter to me but maybe I am nuts.

 

This is clearly heart autosplinter for me, but Phil disagrees so it seems you will have to talk to partner.

 

2NT shows extras so we are clearly in slam zone, knowing partner has doubleton heart makes ♥Q irrelevant, so all we need is to bid 3♠ + 4NT to locate ♠KQ, ♥A and ♦A to reach grand.

[mgoetze]

2NT shows extras

It does? I'm sure that's a reasonable treatment but I would be quite surprised to learn that it was standard (in a 2/1 GF context).

[Fluffy]

In French standard and Forum D lands I think its the normal evolution from them.

[mgoetze]

In French standard and Forum D lands I think its the normal evolution from them.

Sure, but neither of those systems are 2/1 GF systems. OP here specified 2/1 GF.

[cherdano]

The sequence of 2♥ followed by a spade raise, whether a splinter or simply bidding 3♠ (after all, opener might not rebid 2♠) shouldn't be seen as limiting responder's spade length.....why on earth should we define these auctions as showing precisely 3 card support? What is the justification?

 

I think this is a fairly common agreement/understanding for the splinter. And the justification is pretty obvious: the value of a splinter depends heavily on how many trumps it comes with, and it helps opener picture responder's hand and the possible play in slam.

 

I don't want to start picking on you again, but I do think it's an example of where you dismiss an understanding (a fairly common among NA experts in this case) too easily because you are unfamiliar with it. If you were familiar with this treatment, I could see you writing a long post now how intermediate players don't understand that you need to be able to picture partner's hand for slam investigations, about the huge difference between shortness coming with three or four trumps, etc.

[Fluffy]

Sure, but neither of those systems are 2/1 GF systems. OP here specified 2/1 GF.

I mean players who evloved from French standard and Forum D, tend to play 2NT rebid as strong when they switch to 2/1.

 

In America there was some discussion and the terms "lawrence style" (reverses promised extras) and "bergen style" (reverses didn't show extras) had some exchange.

 

IMO best of all is playing artificial, Frances Hidden has a very complete 2/1 system. 2NT rebid can vary depending on the start but mostly it shows 6+ in the major.

[mikeh]

I think this is a fairly common agreement/understanding for the splinter. And the justification is pretty obvious: the value of a splinter depends heavily on how many trumps it comes with, and it helps opener picture responder's hand and the possible play in slam.

 

I don't want to start picking on you again, but I do think it's an example of where you dismiss an understanding (a fairly common among NA experts in this case) too easily because you are unfamiliar with it. If you were familiar with this treatment, I could see you writing a long post now how intermediate players don't understand that you need to be able to picture partner's hand for slam investigations, about the huge difference between shortness coming with three or four trumps, etc.

LOL. I happen to think that you are failing to understand my point. I think that you, and many others, are far too focused on the trees (how may trump do we show?) and not on the forest: are we interested in slam? On some hands we are interested with 3 trump, but that will usually be a better hand (on the minimum end of our range) then a similar slam interest with 4 trump. I am far more interested in describing a source of tricks, ruffing values, real trump support, and slam interest than I am in defining below game whether along with all of this I hold precisely 3 trump.

 

I do understand the treatment I am criticizing, since I have played it. Having played it with some good players, I have come to think a little differently. You too easily assume that just because I don't like a method, I must be ignorant of it. I suspect this is a classic situation of projection :P

[cherdano]

Well, look again at what you wrote:

The sequence of 2♥ followed by a spade raise, whether a splinter or simply bidding 3♠ (after all, opener might not rebid 2♠) shouldn't be seen as limiting responder's spade length.....why on earth should we define these auctions as showing precisely 3 card support? What is the justification?

 

The problem is that all too many players learn bidding by rules rather than by understanding what bidding is intended to accomplish. We learn that with certain holdings we are supposed to bid this or that, and so on. However, in real life there is a virtually limitless number of variations we can hold, and far too many to be neatly encapsulated in rigid rules.

The only way I can read this is that you think there is no merit whatsoever in distinguishing between 3-card and 4-card support with a splinter. That is obviously not true! It does help to know if you are in a 5-3 or a 5-4 fit when are you planning to ruff some tricks. Or 6-3 versus 6-4 when your trump suit is lacking intermediates. It's one of the most important features of your hand!

 

It's a tradeoff. Agreeing that a 2nd-round splinter shows 3 trumps exactly helps you bid 5431 hands or 6331 hands with 3-card support more accurately. With 5431 and 4-card support you are often ok as well (if the 5-card suit is unlikely to be a great source of tricks you can just splinter right away). With 6421 you lose a little, and you have to choose between lying about your trump length or not showing your shortness (which can be ok - say you have Kx of your doubleton).

 

And I would actually be interested to hear your thoughts about this tradeoff, given that you have played both methods! Instead, you write a long lecture saying that those who prefer one agreement over the other don't understand that bidding is a conversation, and that you can't have rules for everything.

[mikeh]

Well, look again at what you wrote:

 

The only way I can read this is that you think there is no merit whatsoever in distinguishing between 3-card and 4-card support with a splinter. That is obviously not true! It does help to know if you are in a 5-3 or a 5-4 fit when are you planning to ruff some tricks. Or 6-3 versus 6-4 when your trump suit is lacking intermediates. It's one of the most important features of your hand!

 

It's a tradeoff. Agreeing that a 2nd-round splinter shows 3 trumps exactly helps you bid 5431 hands or 6331 hands with 3-card support more accurately. With 5431 and 4-card support you are often ok as well (if the 5-card suit is unlikely to be a great source of tricks you can just splinter right away). With 6421 you lose a little, and you have to choose between lying about your trump length or not showing your shortness (which can be ok - say you have Kx of your doubleton).

 

And I would actually be interested to hear your thoughts about this tradeoff, given that you have played both methods! Instead, you write a long lecture saying that those who prefer one agreement over the other don't understand that bidding is a conversation, and that you can't have rules for everything.

I suspect the difference between us is that when I hold a good, long, side suit as I do here, the purpose of my splinter, if I made one on the 2nd round, isn't to allow partner to count diamond ruffs in my hand. I expect him to usually be able to play to establish hearts. I want him to know that the opps can't cash 2 diamonds, so that if he holds, say KQxxx Ax Jxx Kxx, he can upgrade this otherwise poor slam hand immensely...not because he is ruffing diamonds furiously in order to win ruffing tricks, but because all his high cards are working, and I have shown slam interest with long hearts.

 

There are hands on which it can make a huge difference to know whether partner has 3 or 4 trump, and nothing I wrote says otherwise. Everything about bidding is in context. When I hold this hand, I don't care if partner thinks for the moment that I hold, say, Axx KQJxx x Axxx or the hand I held. I want him to look at his cards and tell me if he likes what he has heard, which isn't 'I have precisely 3 trump'.

[mike777]

great question and a common problem.

 

 

2nt as a strong spade raise for me as a nonexpert. I just think this response will work out better, more often, not 100%, just more often.

 

 

I don't find the 2h responses persuasive. It may work out better at times but not often enough, in fact it will often lead to a very confusing auction.

 

A splinter bid is even worse. this is roughly an adjusted 5.5 loser hand pard will play me for a 7 loser hand.

 

 

With all of the above said, yes other bids than 2nt may work out better. A great question and common problem.

[gehrhorn]

I would bid 2♥. However, I'm familiar with agreements that say, "If you have 4 card support for my 1M opening, you have to show it with your first bid". If that were the case I'd bid 2NT. I think my hand has too much going for it for 4♦.

[johnu]

However, I'm familiar with agreements that say, "If you have 4 card support for my 1M opening, you have to show it with your first bid".

 

I'm familiar with those agreements too. Some of my opponents play them. :)

[Zelandakh]

I'm familiar with those agreements too. Some of my opponents play them. :)

I play something along these lines too - Responder either supports or relays. That does not mean I would not take advantage of the option of showing a great side suit if playing 2/1. If you do play a method in which Responder cannot show a side suit before supporting, I suggest using a follow-up structure that allows Responder to show the side suit after showing support, or even going over to Fit Jumps outside of competition if the alternatives would be too complex.

[Lovera]

We would bid: (weak NT acol as basic system where 1N is opened when 5332)

 

1♠-3♥-3N-4♠

 

Where 3♥ is single suited and very big or ♠at least Qxxx, ♥HHHxx (where HHH is at least 1 of top 2, 3 of top 5 or AK) and an opening hand and 3N shows at most a singleton J in the heart suit.

 

Not playing any type of fit jump, I would bid 2♥.

I too think it's better 3♥ (having fourthemore a suit with six cards) because there is possibility of a second fit and singleton in diamond could be shown in an eventual RKCB (strong Stayman NT where 1NT is not opened when 5-3-3-2).